[cvsnt] Betr.: Re: sync-protocol questions
jan.keirse at tvh.be
Tue Sep 30 12:36:29 BST 2008
cvsnt-bounces at cvsnt.org schreef op 30/09/2008 07:53:26:
> Arthur Barrett wrote:
> > Something I should have pointed out in my previous post is that the
> > replication/sync thing is completely unnecessary.
> > This question of 'sync' is usually asked by people who are not using
> > well and therefore experiencing performance issues.
> I disagree. The main (only?) advantage local repo replication brings is
> fast arbitrary diffs, and I think there is no other way to get this than
> locally replicate.
The reason I got interested in replication is the availability of an
up-to-date backup at any time.
If the primary server were to crash, for example due to a disk crash, the
existence of a mirror repository allows to be up in a matter of seconds.
Simply change the hostname of the backup server and some CVSNT settings
and the backup can replace the original server.
Indeed, you don't really need sync for this (using unison or rsync alone
would offer the same live backup), but when I started out reading up on
the replication I didn't know that and believed the sync protocol would
take care of all the replication.
Software quality & Systems: Software Engineer
**** DISCLAIMER ****
"This message is delivered to all addressees subject to the conditions
set forth in the attached disclaimer, which is an integral part of this
More information about the cvsnt